Dover school superintendent erred

The process under which Dover’s Superintendent of Schools was investigated regarding the expenditure of unencumbered funds, along with the conclusions drawn from the investigation, were in error.

As a result of these errors, a wrongheaded process has been enabled; one which will now undoubtedly occur again in the future potentially costing taxpayers millions of dollars as well as disenfranchising them from openness in public proceedings.

To start, the wrong attorney was hired by the wrong entity to conduct a limited cursory investigation seeking the answer to four specific questions as they related only to the actions of the superintendent.

Attorney Loughman represents many school districts working closely with many superintendents in all manner of legal issues. I believe this fact should have prompted a different choice to conduct an investigation involving the school department.

The school board should not have been the entity responsible for the investigation. This responsibility should have fallen on the City Council.

The investigation should not have been limited to the superintendent, but widened to include the school board and business administrator, due to their shared responsibilities for school department monies.

The investigation should not have been limited in scope to simply ascertain the answer to four questions put forth by the school board.

One question should have been investigated: did the school board or any of its administrators violate any rules, laws or policies regarding the expenditure of unencumbered funds.

Regardless, based upon the information provided by attorney Loughman to the fiscal committee on January 24, 2012, the answer appears to be yes; both the superintendent and school board did violate the law.

During the meeting Loughman informed the committee that is against the law to expend funds approved for the current fiscal year on expenses for the following school fiscal year, stating: “you can’t pre-pay expenses.” She uses the analogy that the law does not allow for school officials to pre-buy oil for the next fiscal year.

Of course this is apparently what both the school board and superintendent did by waiting until June before going on a shopping spree for items or services which could only be used for the following fiscal school year (the fiscal year ended on June 30, 2012).

In defending the superintendent and school boards spending spree, attorney Loughman explained to the joint committee how it is “common practice” for school boards and administrators to hold onto unencumbered funds until the end of the fiscal year in case any unplanned contingencies arise during the school year which would require the expenditure of those funds.

Since this common practice appears to violate the law, according to Loughman, the fact that the practice may be common place among other school districts does not make it ok.

Loughman’s assertions that there was no indication the administration knew in May that there would be approximately a million dollars of unencumbered funds in the account goes against her previous statement that it is “common practice” for school boards and administrators to hold onto unencumbered funds until the end of the fiscal year.

Likewise, Loughman stated that in March there was approximately one and a half-million dollars of unencumbered funds in the account.

Either the money was in the account and no one knew (not good), or the money was there and people are denying knowledge of knowing (worse).

Attorney Loughman made an additional interesting comment; one I believe the public has a right to have an answer.

She stated the superintendent and business administrator met with and notified the chairman of the school board in May that there were monies available which they intended to spend.

Since the chairman has no authority outside of a proper school board meeting, I am wondering if he gave the go ahead to spend the money without the authority to do so.

So, why does this wrongheaded apparently illegal practice of spending sprees at the end of fiscal years continue so often by school administrators and boards it’s labeled as “common practice” even by attorneys?

When faced with the option of seeing monies becoming surplus and returned, or making purchases, administrators will often opt to spend the money; this happens everywhere.

In addition to the benefit of new supplies and services, it prevents the following year’s budget possibly being reduced by the amount returned as surplus. We all get it.

The biggest disappointment for me, however, was not that the investigation and conclusions appear to have been flawed, but the elitist ruling authority comments made by the school board chairman in admonishing school board members and “John Q. Public” that “ … I don’t want to hear any of this.”

The public and those in positions of responsibilities not only have a right to question publicly elected and appointed officials they have a duty to do so.